Sir, I am afraid whether I shall be able to finish all that I have to say on this Bill within the ten minutes allotted to me by you. However, I will try my best and will be very brief. This Bill proposes to solve the two problems which affect the agriculturists of this presidency. One is the problem of scattered farms and the other is the problem of small farms. I do not think that any honourable Member who has listened to the speech of my honourable friend, the Settlement Commissioner, will deny that the scattered farms are an evil and that that evil should be cured as far as possible. I agree with him that there are many disadvantages120 in having scattered farms and so far as that part of the Bill is concerned, I agree that there should140 be consolidation. Coming to the question of small farms I must say that I differ from the honourable mover of160 the Bill on the question that small farms are unprofitable.
Sir, the honourable Member loaded us with figures showing how small
the existing farms were and what were the difficulties that were
dependent upon the smallness of the farms. I admit there are difficulties in
the existence of small farms but I do not admit that small farms are
necessarily unprofitable or uneconomic. I do not understand what is the
definition of the word “uneconomic” as it is used240 by the honourable mover of the Bill or
the Settlement Commissioner. Sir, as I understand the term, I should
like to state that whether the farm is economic or uneconomic does not
necessarily depend upon the size of the farm.280 It depends, and in fact, it varies with
other factors of production. It varies with labour; it varies with capital. If
a farmer has got the means to employ increased labour and if he has not got
any large capital320 to invest,
then I submit that if this farm is small, it would not be proper
to call it uneconomic on that account. That being my position, Sir, I would
have very much liked to hear from the mover of360 the Bill and also from the Settlement
Commissioner that in our country we have a plethora of capital and that
we had large agricultural equipment for a highly efficient sort of production.
If they had shown that was the case, then we could have agreed
with them that the small farms made production uneconomic in so far as they
prevented420 the utilization
of the equipment we had to the best advantage. But, Sir, I must confess that
the Settlement Commissioner has altogether omitted to touch that point. I
should have liked to hear from him that the farmer had an enormous amount
of capital, that they had ploughs and cattle in large numbers and that they
could not employ all480 that
because their farms were too small. So far as I have been able to work out the
problem, I find that instead of the capital available at the disposal of
the farmer being very large and being wasted because his holdings were small,
the situation is just the opposite of what we are led to believe. I find, Sir, in the Madras Presidency we have one plough
for three acres; in the Bombay Presidency we have one plough560 for 6 acres; in Punjab, there is one
plough for every two acres. I am reading from the official figures. These
are the figures regarding the capital equipment of the farmer and considering
the position which I am taking, I am600
inclined to think that under the present circumstances it is better
to further reduce the farms. That will be my logical position and I
am not afraid to face it. I do not, therefore, understand what is the use
of640 enlarging the farms if
the farmer has not got the wherewithal to cultivate the land. I do
not understand how the increasing of the area of the soil to add anything
to any produce if he has not got the necessary labour and capital to
cultivate the land. Then we have also got to remember one fact that ours700 is an agricultural country and that our
soil is exhausted. We have been cultivating it for thousands of years,
and no720 matter what efforts
we may take, we cannot raise the productivity of our soil to the same level
as in America where the soil is virgin. We must reckon with that fact. That
being so, the salvation lies not in increasing the size of farms, but in having
intensive cultivation that is employing more capital and more labour on the
farms such as we have. I, therefore, think that that part of the Bill
which deals with the enlargement of800
the farms is altogether uncalled for. But assuming that we must consolidate our
holdings and that we must also enlarge our farms, I think it is necessary
to look into the methods that are proposed to be employed840 by this Bill more carefully than
has been done by the mover of the Bill.
Sir, the methods which are chiefly employed in this Bill are
first, control of partition of the immovable property and, secondly, the
sale of consolidated holdings. I do not think that there can be
any dispute on the point that if these two methods are adopted, a large part of
our agricultural population will be landless, and I do not think that it is
in the best interests of the country that the poorer classes should be
further pauperized in this manner. Sir, I should like to point
out that although the Hindu Law is very defective in many ways, yet the
Hindu law of inheritance has960
been one great saviour of the people. Sir, the social and religious autocracy
established by the Hindu religion has980
kept a large mass of the people in perpetual thraldom. If their lot is tolerable
under this thraldom, it is because the Hindu law of inheritance has prevented
the creation of plutocracy. Sir, we do not wish to add economic slavery
to social thraldom. Let men be economically free if they are not socially free.
I am, therefore, totally opposed to the abrogation of that just and equitable
system of inheritance. At this stage, I should like to make one humble
suggestion to the honourable mover of this Bill. I am prepared to give
my support to the first reading of1080
this Bill provided he is not wedded to the method of consolidation
and enlargement of holding as provided in the Bill. I think, Sir, the
better method is to introduce co-operative agriculture for standard areas and
to compel owners1120 of small
strips included therein to join in cultivation without destroying private
ownership. If this is done, if some provision for this is made in the
Bill, then I would certainly support the Bill. The honourable Member Mr.
Anderson, the Settlement Commissioner, shakes his head. But I can tell the
honourable Member, that the method which I am suggesting is not my own,
but is a system which is prevalent in Italy, in France, and is being
followed in parts of1200
England with great advantage. Such a solution at any rate would avoid
that revolutionary interference with traditional rights of succession that is
so often recommended by light-hearted reformers of non-farming classes
and would not bring in its train those consequences in the way of limitation of
families which may be anticipated if legislation interferes to
disinherit younger children. So, 1260
it will be seen, Sir, that such a system has been actually tried
elsewhere and with success. I would conclude1280
by saying that, if the honourable Leader of the House is prepared to
consider all these suggestions carefully and will not object to any
amendments that may be suggested in the select committee, and if he is
not wedded to the method of consolidation and enlargement of holdings as
proposed in the Bill, then I have no objection to supporting the first
reading of the Bill.
The mechanism employed by the Bill to maintain the standard
unit once it is laid down is two-fold. First, it severely penalizes the owners
of farms smaller than the standard so that ownership of a small farm shall
become a burden instead of a benefit to him. Secondly, it prohibits the
ownership of small1400 farms
in that it provides that in future small farms shall not come into existence at
all. As an instance of the latter, one may refer to the restrictions on
partitions. It is, therefore, obvious that in the mechanism adopted1440 by the Bill, the rights of ownership of
people are at stake. I object to this mechanism on three grounds. Firstly, it
affects the rights of property. If the arrangement was State ownership and State
management of lands, the invasion of rights of property would not be a
matter of such anxious concern. But the arrangement is such that there will
be the aggrandisement of some landlords at the cost of the rest. There
is no doubt in my mind that the effect of the mechanism adopted in
the Bill will be to reduce some land-owning farmers into landless labourers.
It is difficult to imagine how many will find themselves in
this predicament. Everything will depend upon how large the standard farm
will be. If the standard be much above the actual, it will affect a large class
than what the case will be if the standard approximated the actual. The magnitude
of displacement that will take place is1600
an unknown quantity and will become known only when the standard becomes
defined.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GLOSSARY
Pauperized - Impoverished; made very poor (Past
tense of verb ‘pauperize’)
Thraldom - The state of being in slavery or
bondage to another person
Plutocracy - Government by the wealthy
Aggrandisement - The act of
increasing the wealth or prestige or power or scope of something
